Index to Chiropractic Literature
Index to Chiropractic Literature
My ICL     Sign In
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Index to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic Literature
Share:

ICL Home


For best results switch to Advanced Search.
Article Detail
Return to Search Results
ID 21054
  Title Reliability of zygapophysial joint space measurements made from magnetic resonance imaging scans of acute low back pain subjects: Comparison of 2 statistical methods
URL http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(10)00045-X/fulltext
Journal J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010 Mar-Apr;33(3):220-225
Author(s)
Subject(s)
Peer Review Yes
Publication Type Article
Abstract/Notes OBJECTIVE: This purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of measurements made of the zygapophysial (Z) joint space from the magnetic resonance imaging scans of subjects with acute low back pain using new equipment and 2 different methods of statistical analysis. If found to be reliable, the methods of Z joint measurement can be applied to scans taken before and after spinal manipulation in a larger study of acute low back pain subjects.

METHODS: Three observers measured the central anterior-to-posterior distance of the left and right L4/L5 and L5/S1 Z joint space from 5 subject scans (20 digitizer measurements, rounded to 0.1 mm) on 2 separate occasions separated by 4 weeks. Observers were blinded to each other and their previous work. Intra- and interobserver reliability was calculated by means of intraclass correlation coefficients and also by mean differences using the methods of Bland and Altman (1986). A mean difference of less than +/-0.4 mm was considered clinically acceptable.

RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients showed intraobserver reliabilities of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.98), 0.83 (0.62-0.92), and 0.92 (0.83-0.96) for each of the 3 observers and interobserver reliabilities of 0.90 (0.82-0.95), 0.79 (0.61-0.90), and 0.84 (0.75-0.90) for the first and second measurements and overall reliability, respectively. The mean difference between the first and second measurements was -0.04 mm (+/-1.96 SD = -0.37 to 0.29), 0.23 (-0.48 to 0.94), 0.25 (-0.24 to 0.75), and 0.15 (-0.44 to 0.74) for each of the 3 observers and the overall agreement, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical methods were found to be useful and complementary and showed the measurements to be highly reliable.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text.


   Text (Citation) Tagged (Export) Excel
 
Email To
Subject
 Message
Format
HTML Text     Excel



To use this feature you must register a personal account in My ICL. Registration is free! In My ICL you can save your ICL searches in My Searches, and you can save search results in My Collections. Be sure to use the Held Citations feature to collect citations from an entire search session. Read more search tips.

Sign Into Existing My ICL Account    |    Register A New My ICL Account
Search Tips
  • Enclose phrases in "quotation marks".  Examples: "low back pain", "evidence-based"
  • Retrieve all forms of a word with an asterisk*, also called a wildcard or truncation.  Example: chiropract* retrieves chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractors
  • Register an account in My ICL to save search histories (My Searches) and collections of records (My Collections)
Advanced Search Tips